Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 10 of 14
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was legally unsustainable due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, despite the assessee participating in the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding the CIT(A) misunderstanding the balance sheet facts was crucial. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deemed rental income for the unlettable property had been decided in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. Therefore, the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly rectified a mistake apparent from the record by adding back the amount that should have been considered in the Section 153A assessment. The CIT(A) also correctly dismissed the appeal as the issues raised were related to a prior assessment order for which a separate appeal was already decided.
The Tribunal held that for membership and life membership fees to be considered corpus donations, there must be specific directions from the members that these fees shall form part of the trust's corpus. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify such specific directions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the issues were covered by previous rulings in favor of the assessee. Specifically, royalty payments were treated as revenue expenditure, and no TDS was required on commission paid to foreign agents operating outside India.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the issues were covered by previous rulings in favor of the assessee. Specifically, royalty payments were treated as revenue expenditure, and no TDS was required on commission paid to foreign agents operating outside India.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Section 12AA registration had been restored by a co-ordinate bench, which also held its objects to be charitable. Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was set aside. The issue of the Infrastructure Development Fund was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the ITSC had considered the entire data from the pen drive and accepted the disclosure made by the individuals as full and true. Therefore, the Revenue could not controvert the ITSC's findings on the adequacy of the income offered.
The Tribunal held that the ITSC had considered the entire data from the pen drive and accepted the disclosure made by the individuals as full and true. Therefore, the Revenue could not controvert the ITSC's findings on the adequacy of the income offered.
The Tribunal held that the ITSC had considered the entire data from the pen drive and accepted the disclosure made by the individuals as full and true. Therefore, the Revenue could not controvert the ITSC's findings on the adequacy of the income offered.
The Tribunal held that the ITSC had considered the entire data from the pen drive and accepted the disclosure made by the individuals as full and true. Therefore, the Revenue could not controvert the ITSC's findings on the adequacy of the income offered.
The Tribunal held that the ITSC had considered the entire data from the pen drive and accepted the disclosure made by the individuals as full and true. Therefore, the Revenue could not controvert the ITSC's findings on the adequacy of the income offered.
The Tribunal held that the ITSC had considered the entire data from the pen drive and accepted the disclosure made by the individuals as full and true. Therefore, the Revenue could not controvert the ITSC's findings on the adequacy of the income offered.
The Tribunal held that the sale of electricity at Rs. 6.72 per unit was at Arm's Length Price (ALP) and no adjustment was required. For steam, the Tribunal found that the TPO erred in treating the cost as Nil and upheld the assessee's valuation of Rs. 2160/MT as ALP.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly examined the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The tribunal held that appeals filed by the Directors of the company are not maintainable after the appointment of an IRP. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile.
The Tribunal held that vehicle loan interest is not an indirect interest expenditure for earning exempt income. It also directed that the disallowance for administrative expenses should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income, as per the Delhi High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, is binding on the Revenue. As the tax effect in this appeal was below the specified limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based solely on suspicion without any concrete material. The CIT(A) had correctly considered the assessee's submissions and the fact that the refund was processed by the department.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own precedents in the assessee's own case for prior years. The excise refund was treated as revenue receipt and not deductible from the cost of assets.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) and had been issued Form-3. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that expenses incurred to maintain the company's status are allowable deductions even without active business operations. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that most issues were covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches. For the issue of corporate guarantee, the Tribunal found ambiguity and restored the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for re-examination of the nature of the assistance provided to the AE.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by requiring the assessee to prove a negative, which is impossible. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that in a previous assessment year, a similar issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer, who subsequently allowed the set-off. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be vague and non-speaking, lacking reference to relevant facts. Consequently, the order was set aside for not fulfilling the statutory remit.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard after considering the written submissions inadequate. The CIT(A) should have confronted this fact to the assessee and provided a specific opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal held that passing an order against a dissolved entity is a substantive illegality and a nullity in the eyes of law, not curable under Section 292B. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that passing an order against a dissolved entity is a substantive illegality and a nullity in the eyes of law, not curable under Section 292B. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to present supporting evidence and arguments, and then pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search related to the assessment year. Since no such material was found, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee and the submission of the Revenue. The appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances in Section 153A assessments must have a direct nexus with incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was found, the additions were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not properly adjudicate the claim under Section 80IA(4) and failed to apply the correct interpretation of the law. Therefore, the PCIT rightly invoked Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not properly adjudicate the claim under Section 80IA(4) and failed to apply the correct interpretation of the law. Therefore, the PCIT rightly invoked Section 263.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and the material on record. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances in Section 153A assessments must have a direct nexus with incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was found, the additions were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal accepted that a senior citizen might keep cash at home for medical emergencies but noted the non-explanation of the source. It observed that only Rs. 2 lakhs was seized, implying the search party accepted the source for the remaining Rs. 54,200/-.